who wants gmail?

[prathapml]

I guess famer here already has gmail - he was trying to help - do tell if you need one.

As for tak, has alanoll sent you an invite, or what?

I'd like to ask that whoever is sending invites to those who have requested in this thread - should post saying that an invite has been sent to user XYZ (for example) - so that multiple people don't end up inviting the same person.

[foxxx]

hmm i cant get rid of 'm that fast strange i cant sell them atm cuse i first need to confirm ebayaccount.

so my offer still stands if you need GMAIL reply to this topic so we can help you out

they keep giving invites

[riZz]

I would love to have GMail account. My email address is rizzc4 [at] hotmail [dot] com. Thx inadvance

[tak]

I guess famer here already has gmail - he was trying to help - do tell if you need one.

As for tak, has alanoll sent you an invite, or what?

I'd like to ask that whoever is sending invites to those who have requested in this thread - should post saying that an invite has been sent to user XYZ (for example) - so that multiple people don't end up inviting the same person.

Nope. But I'll be back in this thread in two-three weeks or so

Edit: YAY! Thank you, prathapml! Goodbye, Spymac. Many thanks. Now I can actually have a working email account

Edited August 29, 2004 by tak

[prathapml]

These are the people who've been sent invites, check your Personal Messages please....

- tak

- riZz

As alanoll said, atleast you're past that one week mark. Please note that this doesn't mean that people who've not posted much on the forums will also get invites - the above two have been helpful on the forums, so a slight relaxation - but we immediately raise the bar back to 50 posts.

If you've received the invite, and registered it, please come back to this thread, and say so, and edit your post to remove the email address. You just need to click on the invite link provided for registration (in IE/firefox).

[Famer]

prathapml no i dont have gmail. I dont know what to do with a gig of email space. and how good is Google mail is it better than any thing you would get with an isp. just asking. i guess you guys have a load of friends and family that email you.

[prathapml]

Well then famer, do post that you want gmail if you want it. Lots of people love the gmail service for loads of reasons (please see my posts at the beginning of this thread about what is good about gmail).

All that can be said is - you're welcome to pick up a gmail account if you want to, and see what's in it for yourself. You do fulfil the condition that gamehead and I have decided upon, anyway (atleast 1 week on MSFN, atleast 50 posts to your credit).

@Famer

check your PM box.

EDIT:

Famer has been sent a gmail invite as well.

[Famer]

prathapml Thanks i will look into it. i can't beleave Google Mail is (free)<----. you just can't get it with out an invite

[tiredoflogins]

apart from gmail, there is one more firm that is dishing out 1GB email boxes. and u can sign up straight away. its at http://www.rediffmail.com/

Please check and let me know.

[prathapml]

@tiredoflogins

You have been sent one as well! Check the mail-box address you gave.

BTW, I've been registered with rediff as well since 3 years (and some months). They only recently upgraded mail-box capacities to compete with Gmail. But somehow, I find rediffmail incomparable with Gmail.

[tlatoani]

Well, when I was reading this post, I wanted an account immediately, when not qualify for an account with you I decided to get one by myself, and I found this very interesting information:

(You can read the full note here http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/)

Presumably you have a Gmail account,

and do not object to Google's policies

But many of us will not send mail to gmail.com ...

Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal

Google offers 1 gig of storage, which is many times the storage offered by Yahoo or Hotmail, or other Internet service providers that we know about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it. Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of time.

Google has been spinning their original position in press interviews, and with an informal page described as "a few words about privacy and Gmail." When we see fresh material from Google, we check the modification date at the bottom of the terms-of-use page and privacy page for Gmail. If these dates are still April 6 and April 8, we know that nothing has changed. Google can modify these pages too, any way they want and whenever they want, unilaterally. But at least these two pages carry slightly more legal weight than other pages, because Google should attempt to notify users of significant changes in these formal policies.

A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been illegal. For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish. All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public." Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil," and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong interpretation of Google's actual position! Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is different on issues that matter.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.

Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion. Why should we send email to Gmail accounts under such draconian conditions?

Problem 2: Google's policies do not apply

The phrasing and qualifiers in the Gmail privacy policy are creepy enough, but nothing in any of Google's policies or public statements applies to those of us who don't have Gmail accounts. Google has not even formally stated in their privacy policy that they will not keep a list of keywords scanned from incoming email, and associate these with the incoming email address in their database. They've said that their advertisers won't get personally identifiable information from email, but that doesn't mean that Google won't keep this information for possible future use. Google has never been known to delete any of the data they've collected, since day one. For example, their cookie with the unique ID in it, which expires in 2038, has been tracking all of the search terms you've ever used while searching their main index.

Problem 3: A massive potential for abuse

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?

Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.

Problem 4: Inappropriate ad matching

We don't use Gmail, but it is safe to assume that the ad matching is no better in Gmail, than it is in news articles that use contextual ad feeds from Google. Here's a screen shot that shows an inappropriate placement of Google ads in a news article. We also read about a lawyer who is experimenting with Gmail. He sent himself a message, and discovered that the law practice footer he uses at the bottom of all of his email triggered an ad for a competing law firm.

Another example is seen in the Google ads at the bottom of this story about Brandon Mayfield. There are two ads. One mentions sexual assault charges (sex has nothing to do with the story), and the other is about anti-terrorism. The entire point of this article, as well as a New York Times piece on May 8, 2004, is that a lawyer has had his career ruined due to overreaction by the FBI, based on disputed evidence. He was arrested as a material witness and his home and office were searched. The NYT (page A12) says that "Mr. Mayfield was arrested before investigators had fully examined his phone records, before they knew if he had ever met with any of the bombing suspects, before they knew if he had ever traveled to Spain or elsewhere overseas. His relatives said he had not been out of the United States for 10 years." The only evidence is a single fingerprint on a plastic bag, and some FBI officials have raised questions about whether this print is a match. While Mr. Mayfield will get his day in court, it appears that Google's ads have already convicted him, and for good measure added some bogus sexual assault charges as well. Would Mr. Mayfield be well-advised to send email to Gmail account holders to plead his case?

Our last example shows three ads fed by Google at the bottom of a Washington Post column titled "Gmail leads way in making ads relevant." The columnist argues that Google's relevant ads improve the web, and therefore she finds nothing objectionable about Gmail. These Google-approved ads offer PageRank for sale, something which only a year ago, Google would have considered high treason. Yes, these ads are "relevant" -- the column is about Google, and the ads are about PageRank. But here's the point: A relevant ad that shows poor judgment is much worse than an irrelevant ad that shows poor judgment. The ads at the bottom of her column disprove her pro-Google arguments. She has no control over this, and is probably not even aware that it happened.

Most writers, even if they are only writing an email message instead of a column in a major newspaper, have more respect for their words than Google does. Don't expect these writers to answer their Gmail.

[prathapml]

I think a post is going to come up in a few hours saying "all of that is fine, but I still want my gmail". Its too **** good and too **** gives you brag-rights, that you can overlook those factors above.

In any case, I doubt google will become the sort of monster that is feared - even if they do, remember that modern society is all about trust. You trust that the guy next-door won't blast a grenade in his house and bring down yours as well. You trust that any company worth its salt will not subject you to things you don't want, and try to keep you happy - since only that will gain market-share and keep up reputation. Google's good enough and proved their reliability, I'd say.

[riZz]

Thx alot prathapml, i have recevied your email and i'm all signed up. thx again

[tiredoflogins]

@tiredoflogins

You have been sent one as well! Check the mail-box address you gave.

BTW, I've been registered with rediff as well since 3 years (and some months). They only recently upgraded mail-box capacities to compete with Gmail. But somehow, I find rediffmail incomparable with Gmail.

Got it mate.

Cheers!

TiredOfLogins

[Deezire]

i`ve got invite`s for gmail...

don`t know what to do with it....

So..........

First 2 reply`s

will get gmail account..

leave you`re mail.......

[EDIT]

thats 1...

1 left:D

[/EDIT]